People of the Phil., plaintiff-appellee vs Loma Goce, et. al.

, accused-appellant
Facts:

On January 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale,
punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the labor code as amended by PD 2018, filed against Dan and
Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin in the RTC of Manila, alleging that in or about during the period comprised
between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive in the City of Manila, the accused conspired
and represent themselves to have the capacity to recruit Filipino workers for employment abroad.

January 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3 accused bot none of them was arrested.
Hence, on February 1989, the RTC ordered the case archived but issued a standing warrant os arrest
against the accused.

Thereafter, knowing the whereabouts of the accused, Rogelio Salado requested for a copy of the
warrant of arrest and eventually Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Paranaque Police. Agustin's
counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested to set a hearing for purpose of due process and
for accused to immediately have her day in court. On the arraignment, Agustin pleaded not guilty and
the trial went on with four complainants testified for the prosecution and receipts of the processing fees
they paid.

Agustin for the defense asserted that Goce couple were licensed recruiters but denied her participation
in the recruitment and denied knowledge of the receipts as well.

On November 1993, trial court rendered judgment finding that Agustin as a principal in the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale with sentence of life imprisonment and pay P100,000.00.

Issues:

Agustin appealed with the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing the complainants to the
couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13 in relation
to Article 34 of the labor code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy and (3) there is no proof that appellant
offered/promised overseas employment to the complainants.

Ruling:

The testimonial evidence shows that Agustin indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal
recruitment because, the complainants had a previous interview with Agustin (as employee of the Goce
couple) about fees and papers to submit that may constitute as referral. Agustin collected the payments
of the complainants as well as their passports, training fees, medical tests and other expenses. On the
issue of proof, the court held that the receipts exhibited by the claimants are clear enough to prove the
payments and transaction made.